Merge ObjectSum and PolyTraitRef in AST/HIR + some other refactoring
`ObjectSum` and `PolyTraitRef` are the same thing (list of bounds), they exist separately only due to parser quirks. The second commit merges them.
The first commit replaces `Path` with `Ty` in (not yet supported) equality predicates. They are parsed as types anyway and arbitrary types can always be disguised as paths using aliases, so this doesn't add any new functionality.
The third commit uses `Vec` instead of `P<[T]>` in AST. AST is not immutable like HIR and `Vec`s are more convenient for it, unnecessary conversions are also avoided.
The last commit renames `parse_ty_sum` (which is used for parsing types in general) into `parse_ty`, and renames `parse_ty` (which is used restricted contexts where `+` is not permitted due to operator priorities or other reasons) into `parse_ty_no_plus`.
This is the first part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39085#issuecomment-272743755 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39080 focused on data changes and mechanical renaming, I'll submit a PR with parser changes a bit later.
r? @eddyb
This commit introduces 128-bit integers. Stage 2 builds and produces a working compiler which
understands and supports 128-bit integers throughout.
The general strategy used is to have rustc_i128 module which provides aliases for iu128, equal to
iu64 in stage9 and iu128 later. Since nowhere in rustc we rely on large numbers being supported,
this strategy is good enough to get past the first bootstrap stages to end up with a fully working
128-bit capable compiler.
In order for this strategy to work, number of locations had to be changed to use associated
max_value/min_value instead of MAX/MIN constants as well as the min_value (or was it max_value?)
had to be changed to use xor instead of shift so both 64-bit and 128-bit based consteval works
(former not necessarily producing the right results in stage1).
This commit includes manual merge conflict resolution changes from a rebase by @est31.
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
Most of the Rust community agrees that the vec! macro is clearer when
called using square brackets [] instead of regular brackets (). Most of
these ocurrences are from before macros allowed using different types of
brackets.
There is one left unchanged in a pretty-print test, as the pretty
printer still wants it to have regular brackets.
prefer `if let` to match with `None => { }` arm in some places
In #34268 (8531d581), we replaced matches of None to the unit value `()`
with `if let`s in places where it was deemed that this made the code
unambiguously clearer and more idiomatic. In #34638 (d37edef9), we did
the same for matches of None to the empty block `{}`.
A casual observer, upon seeing these commits fly by, might suppose that
the matter was then settled, that no further pull requests on this
utterly trivial point of style could or would be made. Unless ...
It turns out that sometimes people write the empty block with a space in
between the braces. Who knew?
Fix some pretty printing tests
Many pretty-printing tests are un-ignored.
Some issues in classification of comments (trailing/isolated) and blank line counting are fixed.
Some comments are printed more carefully.
Some minor refactoring in pprust.rs
`no-pretty-expanded` annotations are removed because this is the default now.
`pretty-expanded` annotations are removed from compile-fail tests, they are not tested with pretty-printer.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23623 in favor of more specific https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37201 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37199
r? @nrc
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
Second step of #34761. Last big hurdle before we can work in earnest towards Allocator integration (#32838)
Note: I am not clear if this is *also* a syntax-breaking change that needs to be part of a breaking-batch.
In #34268 (8531d581), we replaced matches of None to the unit value `()`
with `if let`s in places where it was deemed that this made the code
unambiguously clearer and more idiomatic. In #34638 (d37edef9), we did
the same for matches of None to the empty block `{}`.
A casual observer, upon seeing these commits fly by, might suppose that
the matter was then settled, that no further pull requests on this
utterly trivial point of style could or would be made. Unless ...
It turns out that sometimes people write the empty block with a space in
between the braces. Who knew?
macros: clean up scopes of expanded `#[macro_use]` imports
This PR changes the scope of macro-expanded `#[macro_use]` imports to match that of unexpanded `#[macro_use]` imports. For example, this would be allowed:
```rust
example!();
macro_rules! m { () => { #[macro_use(example)] extern crate example_crate; } }
m!();
```
This PR also enforces the full shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560 on `#[macro_use]` imports (currently, we only enforce the weakened restrictions from #36767).
This is a [breaking-change], but I believe it is highly unlikely to cause breakage in practice.
r? @nrc
Logically, it's a vector of pairs, so might as well represent it that
way.
The commit also changes `scan_stack` so that it is initialized with the
default size, instead of the excessive `55 * linewidth` size, which it
usually doesn't get even close to reaching.
This applies the HIR changes from the previous commits to the AST, and
is thus a syntax-[breaking-change]
Renames `PatKind::Vec` to `PatKind::Slice`, since these are called slice
patterns, not vec patterns. Renames `TyKind::Vec`, which represents the
type `[T]`, to `TyKind::Slice`. Renames `TyKind::FixedLengthVec` to
`TyKind::Array`.
Refactor `PathListItem`s
This refactors away variant `Mod` of `ast::PathListItemKind` and refactors the remaining variant `Ident` to a struct `ast::PathListItem_`.
